The High Court refused an Ivory Coast national’s application to bring a late judicial review challenge to the refusal of his asylum appeal, finding no substantial grounds and no good and sufficient reason to extend time.
In a judgment delivered on 28 April 2010, Ms Justice M. Clark said proceedings had been issued more than 13 weeks outside the 14-day time limit. The applicant said he had initially waited for advice from the Refugee Legal Service before consulting a solicitor who took the case pro bono. The solicitor’s affidavit left key dates blank, and no explanation was given for the period between counsel preparing draft proceedings on 25 February 2008 and the proceedings being issued on 8 April.
The applicant had sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision affirming a negative recommendation on his asylum application. He argued that the Tribunal had failed to give proper notice of country information, relied selectively on that information, failed to engage with two earlier Tribunal decisions, and inadequately considered medical reports concerning injuries he attributed to torture in Ivory Coast.
The court rejected each ground as a substantial basis for judicial review. It found that the applicant had been given an opportunity to respond to the country information at the appeal hearing. It also found no material conflict in the 2007 UK Home Office guidance cited by the Tribunal: the court said the relevant point was that low-level RDR members were not generally considered likely to face persecution.
The earlier Tribunal decisions concerned people who had left Ivory Coast and come to Ireland directly. The court said this applicant’s account included more than three years in Mali and six months in Togo without seeking asylum, and that his circumstances made those decisions of limited relevance. On the medical reports, the court noted that they did not establish that his ear condition resulted from trauma and that the GP report said scars “might be explained” by his claim. The judge said past detention and torture, if established, did not determine whether he faced a well-founded fear of persecution on return.
The court therefore refused the extension of time. As a result, leave to apply for judicial review was not granted. The judgment did not determine the applicant’s asylum claim afresh.